EIMI.L vs. IGF

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EIMI.L returned 10.60%/yr vs 8.67%/yr for IGF. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EIMI.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EIMI.L achieves a 22.83% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 9.68% return. Over the past 10 years, EIMI.L has outperformed IGF with an annualized return of 10.60%, while IGF has yielded a comparatively lower 8.67% annualized return.

EIMI.L

• 1D: 3.53%
• 1M: 1.15%
• YTD: 22.83%
• 6M: 26.10%
• 1Y: 43.20%
• 3Y*: 21.64%
• 5Y*: 7.50%
• 10Y*: 10.60%

IGF

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 9.68%
• 6M: 10.24%
• 1Y: 16.24%
• 3Y*: 16.28%
• 5Y*: 10.22%
• 10Y*: 8.67%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	22.83%	32.16%	7.36%	11.03%	-19.67%	-0.65%	18.80%	16.37%	-14.18%	36.94%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	9.68%	21.31%	14.81%	6.14%	-1.26%	11.57%	-6.50%	25.82%	-9.95%	19.31%

Correlation

The correlation between EIMI.L and IGF is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2014	0.45

The correlation between EIMI.L and IGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EIMI.L	IGF
Technology	35.0%	-
Financial Services	18.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	-
Industrials	8.9%	38.8%
Basic Materials	6.9%	-
Communication Services	6.4%	-
Energy	3.9%	20.1%
Healthcare	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	-
Utilities	2.2%	41.1%
Real Estate	1.7%	0.1%

Return for Risk

EIMI.L vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EIMI.L

EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 76
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 73

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 54
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 49
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 53

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	EIMI.L	IGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	1.55	+0.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	2.22	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.27	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.40	2.78	+0.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.76	8.03	+3.73

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is higher than the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIMI.L and IGF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIMI.L drawdown since its inception was -38.73%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIMI.L and IGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EIMI.L	IGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.73%	-58.33%	+19.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.66%	-5.87%	-6.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.44%	-14.28%	-3.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.45%	-20.83%	-14.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.73%	-42.11%	+3.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.75%	-2.98%	-0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.99%	-11.86%	-2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	2.04%	+1.62%

Volatility

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a higher volatility of 8.37% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.85%. This indicates that EIMI.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EIMI.L	IGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.37%	3.85%	+4.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.62%	8.73%	+8.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.94%	10.58%	+9.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	14.00%	+4.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.20%	16.83%	+2.37%

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EIMI.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

EIMI.L vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

EIMI.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	2.94%	3.23%	3.21%	3.36%	2.67%	2.42%	2.33%	3.27%	3.52%	2.95%	2.98%	3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EIMI.L and IGF in my portfolio?

EIMI.L and IGF have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EIMI.L or IGF?

On fees, EIMI.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EIMI.L or IGF?

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.

What is the main difference between EIMI.L and IGF?

EIMI.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while IGF is Industrials Equities. EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EIMI.L and 0.39% for IGF.